US Holidays?

[ravenne]

Originally Posted by Halk

Yep, there's arguements against statutory maternity leave here.

Imagine you run a small company, you are going to hire someone to do the books. Do you hire a 25 year old woman who has just got married? Or do you think to yourself that she's going to miss 1 year out of the next three if she decides to have kids. It's also illegal to discriminate against women. If it's a small company how are you supposed to cover for someone for 6 months, and still keep their job open?

I can see why maternity leave is there, but I can also understand the problems with it. Personally I think people should be sensible enough to save up in advance, but that's not going to happen. There's really no easy answer I can think of other than a complicated complete revamp of national insurance to turn it into actual insurance against things like that.

You could hire an extra employee (someone with a limited contract) or call freelancers in. You can also make an early return more attractive by offering a part-time job, home office solutions or even a babysitter at work. I don´t believe in maternities ruining small companies. The smaller the company the more possibilities to change things for the individual needs of its employees.

[Halk]

Originally Posted by ravenne

You could hire an extra employee (someone with a limited contract) or call freelancers in. You can also make an early return more attractive by offering a part-time job, home office solutions or even a babysitter at work. I don´t believe in maternities ruining small companies. The smaller the company the more possibilities to change things for the individual needs of its employees.

Yes there are options. But do you think someone running a small business likes being forced to effectively pay someone twice, and have the hassle of someone coming in who doesn't know the job etc?

I'm not supporting either position though. I'm just pointing out there's a problem and I can see both sides of it.

[pshrynk]

Here in the US, most laws about leave, etc, exclude businesses with fewer than 50 employees. This reduces the impact. Many smaller businesses then have some voluntary compliance with the rules in a modulated fashion in order to attract and retain high quality employees, if they can afford it.

[Halk]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Here in the US, most laws about leave, etc, exclude businesses with fewer than 50 employees. This reduces the impact. Many smaller businesses then have some voluntary compliance with the rules in a modulated fashion in order to attract and retain high quality employees, if they can afford it.

That doesn't seem like a bad idea.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Halk

Yep, there's arguements against statutory maternity leave here.

Imagine you run a small company, you are going to hire someone to do the books. Do you hire a 25 year old woman who has just got married? Or do you think to yourself that she's going to miss 1 year out of the next three if she decides to have kids. It's also illegal to discriminate against women. If it's a small company how are you supposed to cover for someone for 6 months, and still keep their job open?

I can see why maternity leave is there, but I can also understand the problems with it. Personally I think people should be sensible enough to save up in advance, but that's not going to happen. There's really no easy answer I can think of other than a complicated complete revamp of national insurance to turn it into actual insurance against things like that.

Originally Posted by Halk

Yes there are options. But do you think someone running a small business likes being forced to effectively pay someone twice, and have the hassle of someone coming in who doesn't know the job etc?

I'm not supporting either position though. I'm just pointing out there's a problem and I can see both sides of it.

I don't think the company pays most of the cost for this, but the country does. It's one of the reasons our taxes are relatively high. It's the same with sick people. Let's say, I get an accident in which I break both my hands. I'm a computer programmer and thus are in need of my hands.

I can't work and my insurance will only pay for the hospital bills and such. My company can't fire me because of this, but they will have to hire somebody else to do my job. If it takes longer than anticipated, I still can't get fired because of this, but I will get only 70% of my last earned wages. But my company won't have to pay for all this (or they'll probably pay and get it all back from the government). Maternity leave here has exactly the same rules. It only has some more restrictions (like you must be pregnant before you can get maternity leave ) No company will go broke because they have a few sick people or a few people on maternity leave.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by ravenne

You could hire an extra employee (someone with a limited contract) or call freelancers in. You can also make an early return more attractive by offering a part-time job, home office solutions or even a babysitter at work. I don´t believe in maternities ruining small companies. The smaller the company the more possibilities to change things for the individual needs of its employees.

I do know women who've take their paid maternity leave knowing they would hand in their notice as soon as it expires, so they can then look after their children full-time.

I'm not sure how widespread that is, but I can imagine such behaviour would disgruntle an employer.

[ravenne]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I do know women who've take their paid maternity leave knowing they would hand in their notice as soon as it expires, so they can then look after their children full-time.

I'm not sure how widespread that is, but I can imagine such behaviour would disgruntle an employer.

In Germany employees have to tell you before their maternity leave when they will return to work (3 years maximum). Of course it might happen that someone hands in her notice after those three years. But if you stay in contact during this period, invite her frequently for lunch at work with her colleagues or whatever, you´ll easily find out whether someone´s looking forward to return to work some day or not.

During 6 weeks before and 8 weeks after the child´s birth health insurances pay 12,50 Euro per day. The company pays the rest (but you don´t have to pay taxes or social security contributions for it). So companies don´t have to pay the full earnings twice and higher costs are reduced to these 14 weeks.

[Halk]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

If it takes longer than anticipated, I still can't get fired because of this, but I will get only 70% of my last earned wages. But my company won't have to pay for all this (or they'll probably pay and get it all back from the government).

Statutory sick pay in the UK is very low in comparison and does not relate to your previous salary.

I have an insurance policy which will pay 50% of my pre-tax salary, this will not be taxed. The policy will continue to pay until I'm able to return to suitable work (not just any job) or I reach retirement age. It's inexpensive.

I'm against the government providing this cover for everybody because I know it'll not be the working class that get the benefit, it'll be the idle class instead.

The problem of course is that such policies require to be underwritten, and if you have poor health to start with you won't be able to buy it.

Sadly in the UK x% of the population pays the tax for y%. I have no idea what x and y equate to but if I was to guess I'd say 60/40. I don't mind paying pensions, and some forms of tax credits, but I utterly object to people existing their entire lives from other people's pockets.

There is a safety net which ensures that no matter what happens you will have a reasonable standard of living, as that safety net raises higher more people realise it's not with the rat race and drop onto it, or worse still never get off it.

In principle I support maternity pay, funded through a national insurance policy. However national insurance in the UK is nothing of the kind and instead is just another tax.

All of this of course is one big catch 22. In order to do things fairly then people who should be supported will not be. In order to support people who should be, people should not be are supported. I don't think the government has reached the optimum balance though. I would like to opt out of the state pension (not the S2P), unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, etc etc because they are of no use to me. If I become to ill to work the payout from the government is a joke. When I retire - if I live long enough, the government will have to raise the age a few times - then the state pension will be a pittance. So as it stands I have to pay for my own healthcare, pension and insurance yet I also pay for other peoples.

The only way towards a solution that I can think of is to properly ring fence national insurance and make sure that people pay the correct amount based on their salary, and people without insurance do not get to claim. Of course it gets complicated when there's someone who has never been fit to work, do they get the premiums paid for them, and thus a payout? What level of payout do they get? Do we really let people starve who won't work? What about their children, it's not their fault... Edit : more detail, just to make sure I'm not misunderstood... the playing field should be level, someone who suffers from poor health should not have to pay more national insurance. Women should not have to pay more because they might get pregant. Disabled people should be entitled to a significantly higher quality of life than they are now. A person earing a very large salary should have that salary covered, not just a low amount. Likewise someone who is able to work, but does not find work should get at most enough to barely survive. We also need to ensure that doctors neither state someone is unfit when they are fit, but also that they do not state someone is fit when they are unfit.

There is no perfect answer, nor even an answer that's close to it.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Halk

I'm against the government providing this cover for everybody because I know it'll not be the working class that get the benefit, it'll be the idle class instead.

You won't be able to call in sick... You need to be under a doctor's care and this will be checked reguarly. If you can't continue your work because of your sickness (because you may have gotten a disability, for instance), you will have to look for other work that you can still do. And yes, that can mean a lowering of your salary. But there are insurances for that, so you can be sure you'll never earn less than 70% of your last earned salary.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Halk

In principle I support maternity pay, funded through a national insurance policy. However national insurance in the UK is nothing of the kind and instead is just another tax.

National insurance is a tax which pays specifically for the state retirement pension; it has nothing to do with maternity payments or any other type of state benefit.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

National insurance is a tax which pays specifically for the state retirement pension; it has nothing to do with maternity payments or any other type of state benefit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2966852.stm
"The National Insurance system pays for a number of benefits and the retirement pension.
Payment of Class 1 contributions gives entitlement to benefits, including the Jobseeker's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, a Widows Pension, Maternity Allowance and the Retirement Pension."

[HarryT]

Thanks, Sparrow - I stand corrected!

[Halk]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

You won't be able to call in sick... You need to be under a doctor's care and this will be checked reguarly. If you can't continue your work because of your sickness (because you may have gotten a disability, for instance), you will have to look for other work that you can still do. And yes, that can mean a lowering of your salary. But there are insurances for that, so you can be sure you'll never earn less than 70% of your last earned salary.

The cover I have does not require me to return to 'any' job. For example a computer programmer who lost the ability to use hids hands effectively would be covered until either he could use them again, or technology advanced to the point where he could do job without any hindrance.

Typically though the insurance company with negotiate a lower payment but allow you to return to work in more basic job. For example an steel worker who couldn't continue could perhaps get a job in a garden center, and the payout from the insurance company would be lowered.

A proper income protection company from a reputable insurer is a very good policy. But only assuming that you take it out when you're in your early twenties, you keep it going until you retire, and you review it every few years to keep it in line with your salary. It's rather unfair though because someone with type 1 diabetes will either be refused insurance or face vastly inflated premiums.

The point of all this is that you can provide for yourself in the way of income protection, life protection, retirement protection etc etc very well, and very cheaply in comparison to what we pay the government. Even if people at a higher risk were charged the same premium it would average across without a significant cost increase. The problem starts when the government runs things because it's not morally right to allow someone to starve to death or live in abject poverty. And of course this is the point where I hold my hands up and say I don't have the answer.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Halk

The cover I have does not require me to return to 'any' job. For example a computer programmer who lost the ability to use hids hands effectively would be covered until either he could use them again, or technology advanced to the point where he could do job without any hindrance.

Typically though the insurance company with negotiate a lower payment but allow you to return to work in more basic job. For example an steel worker who couldn't continue could perhaps get a job in a garden center, and the payout from the insurance company would be lowered.

A proper income protection company from a reputable insurer is a very good policy. But only assuming that you take it out when you're in your early twenties, you keep it going until you retire, and you review it every few years to keep it in line with your salary. It's rather unfair though because someone with type 1 diabetes will either be refused insurance or face vastly inflated premiums.

Everybody pays that money and it's not something you can stop paying. It is deducted from your salary before you even get it. And it's government regulated.

And no health insurance company can refuse people on any grounds.